Even though this subject has, in John Howard"s view, been "done to death", it seems to be back in the discussion ring.

While it's fine for retired politicians to release books as monuments to their careers, it is also interesting to ruminate on their perceived gross miscalculations and delusions of grandeur. Mr Howard displayed these qualities late in his tenure as Prime Minister with his refusal to hand over to a successor in Peter Costello.
It was rather pathetic from the electorate's standpoint, before the 2007 election, to see Howard still insisting on holding Costello's hand. Presenting themselves as a "temporary team" in a last ditch attempt to get them over the line in an election where Labor's star was ascending seemed to be an act of supreme desperation - and even then Mr Howard "didn't get it". Of course, the reality was that it was much too late by then to do anything about the question of succession - and down the gurgler they went.
Peter Costello seemed to want to let his party know, in no uncertain terms, what he thought of their folly - and he did so by leaving them in a succession vacuum after their bitter defeat.

It would have been interesting;
I would have thought originally that Costello would have been a good choice, but his lack of interest in staying (not much longer than Howard would have stepped down) raises some questions as to how engaged in the role he truly would have been?

The rest of the Liberal Front bench were gorillas- Howard was clearly the best person to lead them, Costello aside.
Turnbull I would only shudder to imagine what he would REALLY do once Prime Minister. Of course, too many gullible simpletons would have been captivated by a handful of speeches he made specifically because he knew they'd fall for it, would still be fawning for this creep.

Of course Howard should have stepped down, he was passed his use by date, & should have known it.

In fact he should have gone 3 years earlier. It is only Labors unfailing ability to pick bl00dy awful leaders that got him over the line in the previous election. I don't believe the average Ozzie ever liked him, but Labors policies, & leadership was so bad, he could hardly loose.

I doubt Costello would won that election, we Ozzies appear to have to do something stupid regularly, just look at what we have now.

Costello made the greatest miscalculation however, in not taking the Liberal leadership when it was his to take. He assumed that the new leader would have no chance of beating Rudd at the next election, & preferred to never be leader, than be a failed one term leader of the opposition.

Of course everyone agreed with him. Who could have foreseen the way the public finally picked up on the stupid arrogance of Rudd, & chuck him out so suddenly?

A Costello lead coalition would easily have won this last election, I'm sure.

The worst thing Howard ever did, as far as Australia is concerned, in not stepping down when he should have, has lead to this dreadful government we now have. I'm sure he would never have wished this mess on us.

Isn't it easy to see it all so clearly in retrospect?

I though that Costello did the right thing after the election. The party had to move on and the leadership straight after a loosing election is death. Howard should have stepped away in 2006 at the top of his game, now he looks like a singer who didn't know their voice was gone. I recon Costello would have defeated Rudd as Keating did Hewson. Pity i though Hewson would actually have done ok but we see now that Rudd was a disaster.

One of the major papers did an online survey on this. When I
voted, something like 8000 people had so far voted, 85% of them
backing Costello and disagreeing with Howard. That says something.

That's where you may be wrong, Hasbeen.

>>I'm sure he would never have wished this mess on us<<

My view is that he is enjoying every minute of it, as it makes him look even more magnificent, in his own eyes. And Janette's, of course.

The whole farrago of leadership mismanagement was caused by Howard's massive ego, no doubt polished daily by Janette, which allowed him to believe that he was still the best option to lead the Party into what turned out to be electoral defeat.

What this country needs, and has so little chance of producing, is statesmanship.

We encourage "thinking little", because "thinking big" is just another from of big-noting oneself, and is fundamentally un-Australian. We encourage in our politicians a preference for the demotic, in the belief egalitarianism demands it.

All of which Howard embodied, to a "T".

The morning walk around the foreshore in his daggy trackies. The promotion that he was a "cricket tragic", when he himself probably never progressed past the under-11s. The permanent smugness of your average suburban solicitor, ever-ready to undertake your conveyancing for you, no matter how challenging it might be.

Not only should he have moved on sooner, we should never have allowed him to be there in the first place.

And if anyone else tells me what a wonderful economic manager he was, I will have just four words for them: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown.

http://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/03/economic-record-of-gordon-brown.html

What we are seeing now - the autohagiography, the petulance of Peter, the random throwing of shoes - is just another tedious chapter in the too-long-running saga of Enterobius Howardii, the great Australian parasite.

By the way, did I mention that I didn't much like the guy?